Is 4-5-1 killing the game?

Is 4-5-1 killing football?

  • Total voters
    40
Wow, people are running out of BS to say about Chelsea. Now it's the boring card is it. Perhaps you're confusing boring with our patient style - you know good things come to those who wait ;)
So let's see. We're boring because, we dont concede any goals. We play strategically, punishing teams by pinpointing their weakness and attempting to control the play. We dont come out all guns-blazing like Arsenal and therefore don't struggle like them when its not working.
Therefore, not to be boring (ie lose matches) we should concede goals and play to the strengths of the opposition. Now who wants to go and do a silly thing like that?
We play 4-3-3, but because the team moves as one, we get numbers back when defending (2 wingers tracking back). Again, what's wrong with wanting to defend your goal?
Perhaps alternatively to "ra ra 4-5-1," i think the development and rise of the "holding midfielder" in recent years, is perhaps more central to the argument. In the days before this phenomenom, a ball through the midfield would be met by the opposition centre backs. These days it's dealt with earlier by a holding midfielder, therefore potentially reducing an end-to-end feel of a game, because it's more likely to be stuck in midfield.
There's more riding on games these days. Money, of course, is not far from the equation, (getting into Europe gets you £millions for example) so teams are going to want to be cautious, if it means they stand more chance of getting the result they require to succeed.
I think too many people have a mob mentality - grab your pitchforks! Who or what can we blame?! (without looking at the big picture) My teams not doing well - Must blame something/someone else!

Calm down dears.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah, that 'd be great (sarcasm) - Sky would then have the freedom to charge whatever they like (mind you, it seems like they do that already in comparison with other European countries). If anything, it should all be on terrestrial if the FA was going to give it up like that. However, filthy lucre wins every time.
 
crayon said:
It'd certainly be cheaper watching four matches a season. :lol:.
Click to expand...
You've clearly been on the pop yourself if you think those are the only games worth watching. Celtic drew 4-4 with Motherwell on the first day of the season and Rangers have already lost 3-0 at home to Hibs and drawn at Falkirk. Hearts are top of the league! Rangers go to Hearts this weekend, that's a game which will be worth watching.

There won't be too much of a problem in the EPL as long as people keeping paying for Sky Sports, I'd say that's where 90% of the cash funding the league comes from anyway.
 
What can be done about this? What do you want, a law from the FA that says "you must play with at least two players upfront for at least 80 minutes"? Managers aren't employed to make the players showboat. They're employed to win.

If you want to watch something more exciting and unpredictable, start supporting your local (non-Premiership) team instead. Watch lower-league teams, grass-roots teams who play with 99% of English players (or the SPL, as Classic said). Problem solved.
 
Chris Davies said:
If you want to watch something more exciting and unpredictable, start supporting your local (non-Premiership) team instead.
Click to expand...
Well said! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
 
We all know who's really to blame anyway, Houllier and Liverpool. Also to a lesser extent Greece, but Liverpool started it all, lets blame them.

:mrgreen:
 
Professor Nutmeg said:
Wow, people are running out of BS to say about Chelsea. Now it's the boring card is it. Perhaps you're confusing boring with our patient style - you know good things come to those who wait ;)
So let's see. We're boring because, we dont concede any goals. We play strategically, punishing teams by pinpointing their weakness and attempting to control the play. We dont come out all guns-blazing like Arsenal and therefore don't struggle like them when its not working.
Therefore, not to be boring (ie lose matches) we should concede goals and play to the strengths of the opposition. Now who wants to go and do a silly thing like that?
We play 4-3-3, but because the team moves as one, we get numbers back when defending (2 wingers tracking back). Again, what's wrong with wanting to defend your goal?
Perhaps alternatively to "ra ra 4-5-1," i think the development and rise of the "holding midfielder" in recent years, is perhaps more central to the argument. In the days before this phenomenom, a ball through the midfield would be met by the opposition centre backs. These days it's dealt with earlier by a holding midfielder, therefore potentially reducing an end-to-end feel of a game, because it's more likely to be stuck in midfield.
There's more riding on games these days. Money, of course, is not far from the equation, (getting into Europe gets you £millions for example) so teams are going to want to be cautious, if it means they stand more chance of getting the result they require to succeed.
I think too many people have a mob mentality - grab your pitchforks! Who or what can we blame?! (without looking at the big picture) My teams not doing well - Must blame something/someone else!

Calm done dears.
Click to expand...

Agree. And isnt it usually those 'boring' 'strategic' teams that end up winning trophies?
 
Dar said:
We all know who's really to blame anyway, Houllier and Liverpool. Also to a lesser extent Greece, but Liverpool started it all, lets blame them.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I think Bolton were at before then!
 
Well for me it depends on the mentality of the formation, a team can play 4-5-1 but still is entertaining to watch, an attacking 4-5-1 is played by many teams like Barcelona, Inter, AC Milan, Chelsea, Man utd, Liverpool. But not all have the same mentality, the other day Sunderland played a 4-5-1 formation but its different from the ones the bigger teams use, for example Barca, where Guily and Ronnie add more depth to attack, or Man Utd with Rooney and Ronaldo sometimes, Mourinho almost defends with his whole team, but also attacks with most of the players except centre backs.
So if two teams that play against each other with similar 4-5-1 formations they might sort of cancel each other out which increases the odds of a draw happening ? (ofcourse talking bout big teams playin agianst each other)
Dunno if am makin any sense but thats what i think :mrgreen:
 
Attitude is what counts.
Let's look at the barça example.
Noted said:
Barcelona are much more of a 4-3-3 than a 4-5-1.

Eto
Ronny Giuly

deco xavi
van bom

Thats very attacking IMO

But 4-5-1 is ruining the game. Football is extremely boring nowdays. I can only bare to watch Arsenal, Barcelona, Milan (when they're on form) because they're the only interesting teams.
Click to expand...

saying they play 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 can more like a point of view.
When they attack it's surely an 4-3-3 but when they defend the it transforms itself into an 4-5-1. If you watch the barça games u will see that when they don't have the ball etoo is the only man upfront.

Like soemone said, and I agree, this might be the transitional stage from the british style to the continental style.
 
A team playing 4-5-1 can be very attractive...
Tactics are not the reason the premiership is becoming very predictable...football politics are...read books like The Beautifull game ? by David Conn an you will understand. The Fa was forced to concede on several crucial points when the premiership started. The way television money is divided makes the rich clubs (Man Utd and Arsenal in the first years of the Premiership) richer. The difference between the top two and the rest was huge untill Roman stepped in. That's why i'm sick and tired of the moaning of utd and Arsenal fans that Chelsea bought a team...Manchester United and Arsenal manipulated the system (division of television money) to build great teams. Now one could see this as clever...ok by me...but stop moaning about Chelsea and Roman's money...
The way things are going English football eiter needs a fair division of the money (and not only between Premiership clubs) or few more Roman Abramoviches for clubs like Charlton, Bolton or (insert every club except Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal).
I know there will be people who will deny what i'm pretending and i will not argue about this for the simple reason thatas a non-native speaker my English is not good enough to explain all these financial things...it's good enough to understand what a couple of very good journalists have written about the way English football is waltzing to it's end like the Titanic...and that's a shame...
 
Agreed, 4-5-1 isn't killing the game, money is. When weaker teams like Birmingham and West Brom travel to the likes of Chelsea and Man Utd, they know they can't compete by trying to outplay them as they haven't got the money to buy players of their quality, so they try and defend and snatch something. Same with teams that go up, they are afraid to go down and into financial trouble, so defend for their lives against better teams to try and grab points. And when 2 big teams meet, they know that a loss is a massive blow all-in-all, so would rather play safe than sorry.
 
Stasman said:
Agreed, 4-5-1 isn't killing the game, money is. When weaker teams like Birmingham and West Brom travel to the likes of Chelsea and Man Utd, they know they can't compete by trying to outplay them as they haven't got the money to buy players of their quality, so they try and defend and snatch something. Same with teams that go up, they are afraid to go down and into financial trouble, so defend for their lives against better teams to try and grab points. And when 2 big teams meet, they know that a loss is a massive blow all-in-all, so would rather play safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

Hi mate

Prob is taking WBA when they travelled to Chelsea earlier this season, they had basically thrown in the towel before a ball had been kicked as Robson fielded a weakened side - they didnt even attempt to play their strongest squad, play defensive and hit em on the break and maybe grab a draw.

db
 
And for a team like West Brom at Stamford Bridge why shouldnt they... The problem lies when there doing the same thing when they play sides like Blackburn!
 
Hi jamie_mack,

I understand from West Brom's POV that they might consider the game a lost cause, but as far as I'm aware that attitude isn't prevalent in the rest of Europe's top flight leagues.

What I mean is, obviously WBA or their (La Liga/Serie A) equivalent "might" expect to get tonked, but to actually go into the game before hand accepting it as a certainty is something else. I thought that sort of attitude was pretty much vilified in football, apart perhaps from when a minnow faces a giant in the cup and their just there to "enjoy the day".

When Treviso travel to the San Siro or Delle Alpi this season, they have arguably even less of a chance that WBA did against Chelsea, however I wouldn't expect them to give up without at least giving it their best shot nor leave out their best player (e.g. Gera) because they were up against Siena the following match.

Personally I feel this is more of a (potentially) worrying trend, than teams playing a defensive formation.

all the best

db
 
Stan said:
A team playing 4-5-1 can be very attractive...
Tactics are not the reason the premiership is becoming very predictable...football politics are...read books like The Beautifull game ? by David Conn an you will understand. The Fa was forced to concede on several crucial points when the premiership started. The way television money is divided makes the rich clubs (Man Utd and Arsenal in the first years of the Premiership) richer. The difference between the top two and the rest was huge untill Roman stepped in. That's why i'm sick and tired of the moaning of utd and Arsenal fans that Chelsea bought a team...Manchester United and Arsenal manipulated the system (division of television money) to build great teams. Now one could see this as clever...ok by me...but stop moaning about Chelsea and Roman's money...
The way things are going English football eiter needs a fair division of the money (and not only between Premiership clubs) or few more Roman Abramoviches for clubs like Charlton, Bolton or (insert every club except Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal).
I know there will be people who will deny what i'm pretending and i will not argue about this for the simple reason thatas a non-native speaker my English is not good enough to explain all these financial things...it's good enough to understand what a couple of very good journalists have written about the way English football is waltzing to it's end like the Titanic...and that's a shame...
Click to expand...
the prem needs a salary cap, end fo story... would solve all of these problems
 
Football could learn quite a few things from the NBA Csaunders.
The salary cap - open accounting (imagine this in Italy or Spain) - the drafts.
The Americans have clearly understood that sports profits from changing hegemonies.
Look at the NBA: Boston - Chicago - Lakers...
To my knowledge there was only once a total hegemony: the Bulls when Jordan playe for them...but Jordan is with Mohammed Ali and our Eddy Merckx among the very few people from outer space in sports.
 
Agreed, a price cap will only be good for football (as well as a "Drafts" scheme!). Its kinda funny as we currently have an advert going on in the UK by Budweiser parodying the Americanization of "Soccer" (slogan: "You do the football, We'll do the Beer!"). Truth is though, there is much to learn from the Americans from all this if we want the game to prosper during these commercial times.

However, for price capping to work, all the major leagues have to follow suit otherwise we will see an exodus of our best players.

Even so, its sadly the case that money talks in this game where so called good players are willing to go to lesser leagues for the extra zero's on their paycheques (i.e. CSKA Moscow)
 
A good read and of particular relevance to this topic:

The trend for using the 4-5-1 formation in the Premiership this season is simply explained.

It is the old story of copying successful systems and successful teams.

Whether it is the World Cup, the Premiership or La Liga, coaches will always emulate formations that work.

So if, as we had in the last World Cup, you have a team like Brazil who played 4-3-3 and adapted their tactics around Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and Rivaldo, people will naturally follow.

If you then get a team like Chelsea introducing the same formation, others will look at tapes and adapt accordingly.

The problem is that they will copy the formation without having the players to do it well.
Click to expand...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4267896.stm
 
Last edited:
rockykabir said:
Agreed, a price cap will only be good for football (as well as a "Drafts" scheme!). Its kinda funny as we currently have an advert going on in the UK by Budweiser parodying the Americanization of "Soccer" (slogan: "You do the football, We'll do the Beer!"). Truth is though, there is much to learn from the Americans from all this if we want the game to prosper during these commercial times.

However, for price capping to work, all the major leagues have to follow suit otherwise we will see an exodus of our best players.

Even so, its sadly the case that money talks in this game where so called good players are willing to go to lesser leagues for the extra zero's on their paycheques (i.e. CSKA Moscow)
Click to expand...

good point, if it only happened here and not everywhere else a salary cap would cripple the game in this country in terms of quality cos the italian and spanish teams would be able to offer the big bucks and we'd end up back in the dark ages!
 
Vannizzlefashizzal said:
good point, if it only happened here and not everywhere else a salary cap would cripple the game in this country in terms of quality cos the italian and spanish teams would be able to offer the big bucks and we'd end up back in the dark ages!
Click to expand...
not entirely true in spain only three non spainards can play on a team, correct? Right there that limits them to whom they can sign... but you overall point is well taken... the parody in american sports is directly related to the salary cap, in the last 20 years we have seen nothing like the dominance Man U had on the prem in the same period, or Real Madrid.. Jordan and the bulls were the excpetion because well MJ was the exception, greatest ball player ever, that is an anomoly and wont happen all the time. The Yankees spend the most every year, and yet they havent won in a while, the salary cap does wonders for sports.... i think UEFA should seriously look at this....
 
Agreed.
the g14 has been talking about his for ages, point is, arrogant UEFA and FIFA don't care about them, and since they don't move a muscle it won't happen.
 
Teams don't want to play to score because the percieved benefit of winning 3-0 or 4-0 seems too risky when compared to the safer option of just sitting back and skanking a cheap goal.

How do you combat this mind set? Incentivise scoring. How about 1 point for evey 5 goals scored? That way you can still get your 3 points by playing like a pussy, but those with balls get more points.

If you take a club like West Ham, who are playing well at the moment but may be involved in the relegation dogfight come May. If they had a point for evey 5 goals they scored it might be enough to lift them above a similar club who plays backs to the wall and rarely scores. Rightly so!

We all want goals, thats why people watch football. If you make scoring a more rewarding prospect then you give clubs more incentive while also keeping the crowds happy. It won't stop small clubs shutting up shop against Man Yoo, Arse and Chel$ki, but they might at least have a go at each other! And that's the real problem right? When the middle and bottom clubs have no reason to play properly.
 
Joystick said:
Teams don't want to play to score because the percieved benefit of winning 3-0 or 4-0 seems too risky when compared to the safer option of just sitting back and skanking a cheap goal.

How do you combat this mind set? Incentivise scoring. How about 1 point for evey 5 goals scored? That way you can still get your 3 points by playing like a pussy, but those with balls get more points.

If you take a club like West Ham, who are playing well at the moment but may be involved in the relegation dogfight come May. If they had a point for evey 5 goals they scored it might be enough to lift them above a similar club who plays backs to the wall and rarely scores. Rightly so!

We all want goals, thats why people watch football. If you make scoring a more rewarding prospect then you give clubs more incentive while also keeping the crowds happy. It won't stop small clubs shutting up shop against Man Yoo, Arse and Chel$ki, but they might at least have a go at each other! And that's the real problem right? When the middle and bottom clubs have no reason to play properly.
Click to expand...

I think this is a very interesting idea Mr Joystick.

With West Ham playing open attacking football I don't see any reason in principle why they shouldn't be rewarded for doing so, on top of their normal points tally.

db
 
It's certainly worth considering. Fifa have shown before that they'll modify rules in order to change playing habits. Getting rid of the pass back to the keeper was a good one. The silver goal springs to mind too. In the J League, there's always a winner, as a draw after 90 mins results in extra time and then penalties. However you receive 2 points for a win from penalties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom